>>3538384>Take a picture of one and post it. Otherwise: bullshit.Here's a snap of my printer you autist.
>I don't need to. What part of it *specifically* do you think refuted the point that I made about the resolution of the eye. Quoted from the article:
Visual Acuity and Resolving Detail on Prints
How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.
The 10600 pixels over 20 inches corresponds to 530 pixels per inch, which would indeed appear very sharp. Note in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50). See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi>In your own words, please.In my own words? You're dead fucking wrong on what people can see at 5ft and 1.5ft. Hell, you don't even understand the terminology (visual acuity is measured in degrees of arc, not "mm in diameter" which is meaningless without a specified distance).
Now go do an 8k test like you promised.
